Odd Fish Find Contradicts Intelligent-Design Argument

For those who believe in Intelligent Design only,as opposed to those who are Christian and believe in evolution,how do you explain this discovery?

CT scans of 50-million-year-old fossils have revealed an intermediate species between primitive flatfishes (with eyes on both sides of their
heads) and the modern,lopsided versions,which include sole,flounder,and halibut.

So the change happened gradually,in a way consistent with evolution via natural selection—not suddenly,as researchers once had little choice but to
believe,the authors of the new study say.

The longstanding gap in the flatfish fossil record has long been explained by a "hopeful monster"—scientific jargon for an unknown animal blessed
with a severe but helpful mutation that was passed down to its descendants.

Ever since a geneticist invoked the hopeful-monster explanation in the 1930s,it has been the conventional wisdom for the origin of modern
flatfishes.

Intelligent design advocates have seized on the idea of instant flatfish rearrangement as evidence of God or another higher being intentionally
creating new animal forms.

Intelligent design advocates often cite the relative scarcity of transitional species in the fossil record as evidence of the intentional creation of
species.

The article goes on to give an argument against this "underwhelming" discovery and Zoologist Frank Sherwin,science editor for the Institute for
Creation Research says,

"Fish have always been fish,all the way down to the lower Cambrian [roughly 542 to 488 million years ago]," he added."We
have no problem with the variation within flatfish.What we're asking is,Show me how a fish came from a nonfish ancestor."

Such a statement not only shows a total lack of understanding regarding the meaning of evolution,but,when he says,"We have no problem with the
variation within flatfish" he also inadvertently admits that evolution is real,as these 'variants' only happen over a long period of time.

Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life, just how it develops.

Also, it is science.Just because it is theory, doesn't mean there isn't evidence for it. There is a big difference between a conventional theory and
a scientific theory. Relativity is "just a theory".....

Creationists have a hard time understanding this as they do not understand the scientific process, yet attempt to slander it by saying "it's just an
theory"....

Evolution is fact. We have witnessed it in laboratories around the world. The theory of evolution, how science explains it, is indeed a theory, but
a scientific theory, much different to 'theory' as used in every-day language. There is masses of evidence for this theory, including DNA,
which was not discovered when the original theory was published, yet lines up perfectly.

It would help your argument to know what the terms you are using mean.

1. 'Evolution' - the phenomenon of one species, or a group thereof, turning into another species.

2. 'The theory of evolution' - the scientific explanation of how 1. happens.

Number one - 'evolution' - is a fact. We have seen it in labs. We have turned one species of fly into two species, which can no-longer reproduce
together (the definition of 'species'). Number two still hasn't had any evidence turn up to blow holes in it - every single discovery has been
well within the framework, but has required the theory to adapt, refining it in every step.

We haven't found a missing link, but by studying DNA we know there was one. That doesn't disprove anything, in fact it was predicted by Darwin and
demonstrated as true by the discovery of DNA.

Darwinian evolution is about 'the survival of the fittest', yes, but you seem to be confused as to what 'fittest' means. He was using it in the
sense 'the most apt', not 'the strongest and fastest'. This is a problem with your understanding of the theory, not with the theory itself.

There are no problems with the theory. There are problems with your understanding of it. Deny ignorance. Read a book.

Originally posted by whiskeyswiller
If Darwinism is about the survival of the fittest then why did the Neanderthals die out? They had larger brains, stronger bodies, and stronger bone
density.

Larger brains, stronger & more resilient bodies and thicker bone density are all things that require more energy to maintain. Food became scarce at
the onset of the last "ice age" and the Neanderthal were unable to keep up the amount of food their bodies required.

Additionally, the Neanderthal used thrusting weapons such as spears to kill their prey, which required them to get very close to their targets. They
had to work as a team to kill their food and this became an issue as that food became more scarce.

On top of that, homo sapiens came up from Africa and began to migrate into Europe where the Neaderthal had lived undisturbed for thousands of years.
They were able to hunt without help from others, and they didn't put themselves as much in risky situations when hunting because they were able to
use projectiles to kill their prey.

There's also some thought out there that humans actually began to interbreed with neanderthals, which eventually assimilated those few into the homo
sapien fold.

I believe that it used to be called the evolutionary theory, now it's just called EVOLUTION. Why, because it has been proven through being put to the
test of scientific scrutiny and passed times and time again. I don't believe that Intelligent design or creationism even has the word theory applied
to it because it is a HYPOTHESIS at best. However, neither intelligent design, nor creationism could ever stand up to scientific scrutiny; therefore,
they have no validity in an argument that is based upon tangible evidence.

Originally posted by whiskeyswiller
If Darwinism is about the survival of the fittest then why did the Neanderthals die out? They had larger brains, stronger bodies, and stronger bone
density.

Larger brains, stronger & more resilient bodies and thicker bone density are all things that require more energy to maintain. Food became scarce at
the onset of the last "ice age" and the Neanderthal were unable to keep up the amount of food their bodies required.

Additionally, the Neanderthal used thrusting weapons such as spears to kill their prey, which required them to get very close to their targets. They
had to work as a team to kill their food and this became an issue as that food became more scarce.

On top of that, homo sapiens came up from Africa and began to migrate into Europe where the Neaderthal had lived undisturbed for thousands of years.
They were able to hunt without help from others, and they didn't put themselves as much in risky situations when hunting because they were able to
use projectiles to kill their prey.

There's also some thought out there that humans actually began to interbreed with neanderthals, which eventually assimilated those few into the homo
sapien fold.

Well explained.

There is so much evidence for Evolution that it's quite silly to deny it today. Examples are abundant and solid proof may be maybe one or two percent
away from completion, but there is so much supporting evidence outweighing the contradictory evidence that refuting evolution is sort of ignorant from
my perspective.

As stated above, evolution and the theory of evolution are two different things. Evolution isn't stating how life began, though how it is thought to
develop by looking at obvious indications.

If Darwinism is about the survival of the fittest then why did the Neanderthals die out? They had larger brains, stronger bodies, and stronger bone
density.

Compared to Neanderthals, we run like gazelles.

When the ice began receding, long, slender bodies and the ability to run fast outweighed being tough and stocky. You can be as tough and stocky as
you want, but the food just ran away, and if you can't catch it, what good was being harder than rock?

I suspect there were many other factors as well, such as the human propensity for genocide.

Actually, we are quite successful because we could walk for incredible distances tracking out prey. A horse, for example, would just run off really
quick (as they do), and the people tracking it could simply stay on its trail, and eventually they'd walk up to a disheveled horse struggling for
breath and overheating, and eat it. We are not quick in the slightest, we're just incredibly efficient at walking really, really long distances.

But yeah, we were massively more suited to the environment than those guys.

Frank Sherwin's comment is exactly true. variations within species does not equal evolution. they have discovered changes within the flat fish
species, so what? When you find intermediate creatures between species, e.g. something not a fish transforming into a fish, then you may have
something. As of now you only have word play; macro-evolution, micro-evolution, speciation etc. stand back and just look at it simply: there is no
evidence past or present, in nature or laboratory, of any creature evolving into a different type of creature.

Number one - 'evolution' - is a fact. We have seen it in labs. We have turned one species of fly into two species, which can no-longer
reproduce together (the definition of 'species'). Number two still hasn't had any evidence turn up to blow holes in it - every single discovery has
been well within the framework, but has required the theory to adapt, refining it in every step.

Dave420 Can you provide me with a link to an article talking about scientists turning one species of fly in another? I've looked on google but can't
seem to find any.

Here's speciation of a fruit fly - it isn't the same fruit fly used in lab experiments; I can't remember their name, but they are used because they
only live 3 days, so you can observe multiple generations in very short series of time. en.wikipedia.org...

Is that the best evolutionists have to offer as proof? again, step back and look at what has happened. they started with a fruit fly and ended with a
fruit fly, they started with a salmon and ended with a salmon. Whether they split into different groups and don't beed doesn't mean they have
evolved into a different creature. Not only are they still fish but still salmon. not only are the flies still flies, but still fruit flies. To say
that this proves evolution from one type of creature to another, i.e. monkeys to men or whatever is ridiculous.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.